Mapp vs. Ohio Essay Sample

📌Category: Crime, Criminal Justice
📌Words: 763
📌Pages: 3
📌Published: 17 June 2022

Imagine this, you get a knock on your door and you open it, and it is the police, now you have a someone who is bomber in the house so at this point your panicking. The police say that they have a search warrant for you and give you the paper, so they enter the house. The police found evidence in the house after they searched many bedrooms, but after a while you look at the piece of paper and it's not actually a search warrant. Now do you get charges against you or will your rights protect you? That brings me to the question of what are the limits and freedoms to Mapp V. Ohio? I will be talking about the Mapp v. Ohio case and the background of the case, and if the case is still relevant today and how the amendments affected it, and the solution to it. 

First of all, what is Mapp v. Ohio? Well, there was a woman and her name was Dollree Mapp. She was a 34 year old woman. Dollree Mapp’s home was in Cleveland, Ohio and it was forcefully entered by police officers who believed that a suspected bomber was inside the house. While they were searching her home, police officers found pornographic books. Later, Mapp was sued under an Ohio law for knowing he possessed obscene material. There is a lot of background information on this case. It happened in 1957. Mapp’s lawyer got called for advice on what to do, but police refused to let him in. The fourth amendment states that we have protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to the states. The officers who searched her home found a trunk full of obscene pictures in Mapp’s basement that was a violation of an Ohio statute. At her trial, the state had no search warrant and failed to explain what happened with it. Mapp was convicted of violating Ohio Law. The Ohio supreme court upheld the conviction even though the evidence against her was illegally seized. She then appealed her case to the United States Supreme court. 

Next, the civil liberty that is involved in this case is how she got dismissed from her charges because the evidence was illegally obtained. The fourth amendment had something to do with this case a lot. It states that it protects people, not places. The amendment gives protection against the introduction of evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. The Supreme court ruled that the fourth amendment did not simply restrict physical entry, “it protects people, not places'' (Olmstead v. United States, 1928). This is important because they are saying that her place was not protected just her, but since they did not give her a search warrant and got evidence illegally she did not get charges, but it did not protect her house. The majority held that all of the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally because there was n o search warrant. The evidence was already bred in federal courts at this point and the majority agreed that the exclusionary rule had to apply to the states or else “the fourth amendment was useless.” 

Furthermore, this case established a precedent that the evidence against Mapp was illegally obtained, the court ruled that she was dismissed from the charges. This case was important because it excluded evidence that was illegally obtained from the court. The exclusionary rule prevents evidence from an illegal search or seizure being introduced against a defendant in court. The exclusionary rule is a rule that holds that if police violate your constitutional rights in order to obtain evidence, they can’t use that evidence against you. And this is saying how even though the police had evidence they did not have a search warrant and went into her house which was unconstitutional, so she did not get charges. The exclusionary rule was extended from the Mapp v. Ohio case and was being applied to the federal courts. Electronic searches test whether there is a “legitimate expectation of privacy,” what can be found in a search is in the public domain, not private. The case of Mapp v. Ohio decided by the U.S. The Supreme Court on June 19,1961, strengthened the Fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by making it illegal for evidence obtained by law enforcement without a valid warrant to be used in criminal trials in both federal and state courts.

In conclusion, the case said it was simply unconstitutional. The supreme court ruled in a 6-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, and it could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. So yes your rights will be protected if it’s against the amendments and considered unconstitutional. I talked about Mapp v. Ohio and the background of it, I talked about how it is relevant today and the solution to it.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.